Text

Summary of Meeting with NEI to Discuss Emergency Planning (EP) Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) and Draft Early Site Permit (ESP) Template
	ML042390144
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	09/02/2004
From:	Joseph Sebrosky; NRC/NRR/DRIP/RNRP
To:	; Nuclear Energy Institute
	Sebrosky J, NRR/DRIP/RNRP, 415-1132
Shared Package
ML042390141	List: ML042390144;
References
	Download: ML042390144 (10)
	v • d • e

September 2, 2004 ORGANIZATION: Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF JULY 30, 2004, MEETING WITH NEI TO DISCUSS EMERGENCY PLANNING (EP) INSPECTIONS, TESTS, ANALYSES, AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (ITAAC) AND DRAFT EARLY SITE PERMIT (ESP) TEMPLATE On July 30, 2004, a meeting was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and NEI at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD. Staff from the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA) also participated in the meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss EP ITAAC and the draft ESP template. A list of meeting attendees is included as Attachment 1. The meeting agenda is provided as .

NRC and NEI handouts were provided during the meeting. The handouts can be accessed through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML042150056. This system provides text and image files of NRCs public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the handouts located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Highlights of the EP ITAAC Portion of the Meeting The EP ITAAC portion of the meeting was a follow-on to a meeting held on June 2, 2004, and a workshop held on April 27, 2004. The staff and NEI reached general agreement on the form and content for most areas that will require EP ITAAC. One area that was identified for additional discussions was how to address requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E that no later than 180 days prior to the scheduled issuance of an operating license the licensee must submit detailed emergency planning implementing procedures. NEI agreed to write a letter and provide proposals for addressing EP ITAAC that were discussed at the meeting. The staff agreed to revise its draft proposed EP ITAAC and to consider NEIs proposals that will be discussed in its letter. The staff expects to issue a revised version of its proposed EP ITAAC in a letter to NEI and other stakeholders sometime in September of 2004. Action items from the EP ITAAC portion of the meeting are provided below. The EP ITAAC numbers mentioned in the action items can be found in the staffs portion of the handout material from the meeting.

Proposed Revision EP ITAAC number D.1.b The staff and NEI will consider removing the phrase and the set points are within applicable instrument range. The staff will also consider whether other proposed ITAAC bound this proposed ITAAC. NEI will submit a proposal for how the EP elements in proposed EP ITAAC D.1.b are captured by other ITAAC.

E.2 The staff and NEI will consider adding the phrase the COL applicant will identify specific capabilities/methods.

E.6 The staff and NEI will consider revising the proposed EP ITAAC to state that The means for notifying and providing instruction to the public are demonstrated to meet design objectives.

H.1.c The staff and NEI agreed to consider replacing the phrase The TSC has the same radiological habitability as the control room under accident conditions with the The TSC has comparable habitability with the control room under accident conditions.

H.2.c The staff and NEI will consider adding the phrase the COL applicant will identify specific capabilities/methods. NEI will consider sending additional information on this proposed ITAAC H.3.a and The staff will consider whether these ITAAC are bounded by proposed EP ITAAC H.3.b N.1.f and H.2.d.

J.10 The staff will consider whether the proposed revision to ITAAC E.6 will bound this ITAAC.

N.1.a and The staff will consider adding the word onsite to these ITAAC. The staff will also N.1.b consider adding the phrase, the COL applicant will identify specific onsite objectives to EP ITAAC N.1.a.

N.1.e NEI will provide proposed alternate wording for this ITAAC and consider how portions if not all of this proposed ITAAC are bounded by proposed EP ITAAC N.1.a and N.1.b. The staff will consider NEIs proposal.

N.1.f NEI will consider adding a discussion in their letter for treatment of FEMA identified deficiencies. Specifically, NEI believes that some deficiencies may not have to be resolved until the plant performs low power testing after the Commission makes its 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding. NEI believes the issue involves interpretation of 10 CFR 50.54(s). The staff agreed to review NEIs discussion.

X.1 This proposed ITAAC would require an applicant to submit detailed implementing procedure no less than 180 days prior to fuel load. NEI will provide information for why they believe this ITAAC is not needed given the requirements of 10 CFR 52.83. The staff agreed to consider how EP implementing procedures should be captured under the 10 CFR Part 52 process.

Proposed Revision EP ITAAC number General NEIs proposal will include a discussion of how a COL applicant will identify specific responsibilities and what information will be contained in the ITAAC and what information will be provided in the final safety analysis report. The staff will consider adding a qualifier to its proposed EP ITAAC that an applicant referencing a certified design may take credit for EP ITAAC that are already approved as part of the design certification process, and that these EP ITAAC would not have to be duplicated in the COL application.

Highlights of Draft ESP Template Portion of the Meeting During the second part of the meeting, the meeting participants discussed comments made by NEI on the NRC staffs draft ESP template. The draft template was sent to NEI and the three ESP applicants by letters dated June 22, 2004 (ML041400179 and ML041110012). NEI provided comments electronically (copy included in handouts), and they made additional comments verbally during the meeting.

Regarding EP information in Table 1 of the draft ESP template, NEI questioned the level of detail needed to support an acceptable determination, reflected in Table 1, and they asked whether the staff can accept (with caveats) a major feature for which some individual criteria are not addressed. The staff indicated that examples from NEI would be helpful and that the staff would consider the question further. NEI also sought input on the difference between acceptable and reasonable assurance as applied to ESP reviews. The staff agreed to investigate the distinction.

NEI also questioned applicability and usefulness of 10 CFR Part 21 in the ESP context. The staff referred to its letter dated June 22, 2004 (ML040430041), on the subject and indicated that either NEI or the ESP applicants could respond to the letter.

Another comment addressed the item in the draft ESP template that calls for possible limits on the number of times an ESP can be referenced in a license application. The staff stated that this item is a placeholder for resolution of Issue no. 1 in SECY-04-0103. NEI questioned whether an ESP is the appropriate location for a limitation of this type.

Another discussion point was the staffs proposed table in the draft ESP template which lists example plant parameters that might appear in an ESP. The staff stated that parameters which are inputs to the safety analyses are appropriate for inclusion in the ESP, and that the issue of inclusion of plant parameters related to the environmental report in the ESP needs further discussion and consideration.

Finally, the participants discussed issue preclusion with respect to changes in plant parameter values. The staff indicated that this issue also needs further discussion and consideration.

Actions for ESP template portion of meeting:

1. NEI and ESP applicants will attempt to develop examples of EP criteria they contend need not be addressed, while still allowing a staff finding of acceptability on the related major feature.

2. The NRC staff will internally discuss the question of whether various EP criteria need not be addressed, while still allowing a staff finding of acceptability on the related major feature.

3. The staff will consider the difference between acceptable and reasonable assurance related to EP requirements.

4. The staff will consider the appropriateness of language in the draft template, which refers to applying rules now or hereafter in effect to ESPs.

5. The staff will consider, in conjunction with resolution of integrated risk considerations in SECY-04-0103, the practicality and usefulness of specifying limits on the number of times an ESP may be referenced in a license application.

6. The staff will consider the question of the need for immediate notification, per 10 CFR Part 21, and in general, how best to apply 10 CFR Part 21 to ESPs.

7. NEI and the ESP applicants will consider commenting on the staffs July 22, 2004, letter which addresses Part 21 applicability to ESPs.

8. The staff will further consider the need for, value of, and language for inclusion in the ESP of plant parameters related to the environmental report.

9. The staff will consider the impact changes in plant parameter values will have on issue preclusion.

/RA/

Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager New Reactors Section New, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689 Attachments: 1. List of attendees

2. Agenda cc w/ atts: See next page